The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

The California US Senate Race 2016 and 2018, 44th, and 27th (LA 2nd largest city in America) Districts only had two Democratic Candidates listed on the General Election ballot. Voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc are all wrong unless it's having only members of one Party allowed to run. The Republican party isn't going to do anything in my interest, but limiting access to ballet to one party that is seriously wrong. California's 8th District for example.

As with many seats in red states, there are times when one party decides not to field a candidate in a particular district. To equate this with ""Voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc" is merely an attempt to cloud the issue and sow disinformation.

As with many seats in red states, there are times when one party decides not to field a candidate in a particular district. To equate this with ""Voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc" is merely an attempt to cloud the issue and sow disinformation.

In other words, beneath the standards, we expect here.

DOR

In the past, you have mentioned your knowledge of California. So you know 12% of the US population and 24% of the US homeless population resides here. With the largest US voting population, Republicans and other parties would hold primaries and nominate candidates. California uses the Top Two Primary system which only allows the top 2 vote getters to get on the ballet. This practice was found to be Constitutional in an US Supreme Court decision penned by Clarence Thomas. Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party. All three major parties in WA opposed the system.

So no it is not a case of:

Originally Posted by DOR

there are times when one party decides not to field a candidate in a particular district.

Do you think the Democrats would say no to putting a candidate in any US Senate Race Like Texas? Yet California in 2014 and 2016 only had Democrats on the US Senate general election ballot.

“This is not a reform. It is terrible,” Pelosi, the House minority leader, and former Democratic speaker told reporters last month. She complained that the system costs too much money and shuts out smaller parties in the name of opening up the primary process to a broader population of voters.

Peter Gemma, writing for The Daily Caller in 2017, argued that "a top-two primary distorts the meaning of a free and fair election," citing electoral outcomes in California as evidence of this point:

“In 2016, as a result from an open/top two primary system, seven of California’s 53 U.S. House contests offered voters a one party choice; five of 20 state Senate contests and 15 of 80 state Assembly races had two members of the same party running against each other. California’s 2016 primary for U.S. Senate resulted in liberal Democrats Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez the only candidates facing off in the November election. This was the first time since 1914, when direct election of U.S. Senators began, that a Republican candidate was not on the ballot in the general election. Among Californians who cast a ballot last year, 16 percent left U.S. Senate choice blank – the worst fall-off for a California U.S. Senate election in 75 years.”

DOR, you can't gerrymander a statewide race to one party, but you can allow ony one party to paticipate in a statewide election with top-two voting.

Top-two, Voter ID, Gerrymandering as used by both parties all limit or suppress our choice of elect representation.

I'm more of a pragmatist than an ideologue. Let me know of any other etiquette or protocol breaches.

In the past, you have mentioned your knowledge of California. So you know 12% of the US population and 24% of the US homeless population resides here. With the largest US voting population, Republicans and other parties would hold primaries and nominate candidates. California uses the Top Two Primary system which only allows the top 2 vote getters to get on the ballet. This practice was found to be Constitutional in an US Supreme Court decision penned by Clarence Thomas. Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party. All three major parties in WA opposed the system.

So no it is not a case of:

Do you think the Democrats would say no to putting a candidate in any US Senate Race Like Texas? Yet California in 2014 and 2016 only had Democrats on the US Senate general election ballot.

“This is not a reform. It is terrible,” Pelosi, the House minority leader, and former Democratic speaker told reporters last month. She complained that the system costs too much money and shuts out smaller parties in the name of opening up the primary process to a broader population of voters.

Peter Gemma, writing for The Daily Caller in 2017, argued that "a top-two primary distorts the meaning of a free and fair election," citing electoral outcomes in California as evidence of this point:

“In 2016, as a result from an open/top two primary system, seven of California’s 53 U.S. House contests offered voters a one party choice; five of 20 state Senate contests and 15 of 80 state Assembly races had two members of the same party running against each other. California’s 2016 primary for U.S. Senate resulted in liberal Democrats Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez the only candidates facing off in the November election. This was the first time since 1914, when direct election of U.S. Senators began, that a Republican candidate was not on the ballot in the general election. Among Californians who cast a ballot last year, 16 percent left U.S. Senate choice blank – the worst fall-off for a California U.S. Senate election in 75 years.”

DOR, you can't gerrymander a statewide race to one party, but you can allow ony one party to paticipate in a statewide election with top-two voting.

Top-two, Voter ID, Gerrymandering as used by both parties all limit or suppress our choice of elect representation.

I'm more of a pragmatist than an ideologue. Let me know of any other etiquette or protocol breaches.

Dazed,

First, avoid muddying the waters by introducing Senate elections. They are not House or sub-national; they are different. The closest approximation is single-seat, At Large Congressional Representatives.

Second, it isn't a Democratic thing. In the 2018 election, 15 House seats were uncontested. That’s surprisingly low, as shown by the chart produced by The Economist prior to the election (https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...term-elections). From the 1940s to 1960s, it was in the range of 20%, and in 2010, the GOPers out-numbered the Democrats 24-5 in uncontested elections.

Third, it isn't a California thing. Remember John Seymour, Pete Wilson and S.I. Hayakawa? GOPer senators from California, one and all. How about Ronald Regan, George Deukmejian and Arnold Schwarzenegger (oh, and Pete Wilson, once again)? GOPer governors of California to a man.

Finally, Dems put up more candidates in 2018, and not just in California. You can give a lot of the credit to your man in the White House. Nothing gets people’s attention so much as grabbing them by the sexual organs.

My personal conclusion is that GOPers are not nearly as committed to democracy as Democrats. If the vote doesn't go their way, they look for a work-around. Democrats, on the other hand, try things like putting two candidates from the same party on the ballot so as to give people an actual choice.

Honestly, Top 2 would matter a lot more if California still did partisan gerrymandering (all redistricting since 2010 is done by a non partisan commission), since that would stop anyone like whatever Californian counterpart to that neo nazi Steven King from winning in the general since the second, presumably sane candidate in that right leaning district would be able to able to right wing voters without being a nazi.

First, avoid muddying the waters by introducing Senate elections. They are not House or sub-national; they are different. The closest approximation is single-seat, At Large Congressional Representatives.

OK, it alright to limit a vote to one party if it's not national. It's the ideology, not the reality.

Originally Posted by DOR

Second, it isn't a Democratic thing. In the 2018 election, 15 House seats were uncontested. That’s surprisingly low, as shown by the chart produced by The Economist prior to the election (https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...term-elections). From the 1940s to 1960s, it was in the range of 20%, and in 2010, the GOPers out-numbered the Democrats 24-5 in uncontested elections.

No, when the political parties hold primaries. A primary that produces enough votes to qualify for the ballots before the top two ballot, should qualify for the general election.

Originally Posted by DOR

Third, it isn't a California thing. Remember John Seymour, Pete Wilson, and S.I. Hayakawa? GOPer senators from California, one and all. How about Ronald Regan, George Deukmejian, and Arnold Schwarzenegger (oh, and Pete Wilson, once again)? GOPer governors of California to a man.

Yes, thank you for agreeing with me. They all ran in a race with a Democrat and other parties on the ballot. Not like D Finestein (2016) or P. Harris (2018) who only had to face another Democrat in the general election.

Originally Posted by DOR

Finally, Dems put up more candidates in 2018, and not just in California. You can give a lot of the credit to your man in the White House. Nothing gets people’s attention so much as grabbing them by the sexual organs.

I come to bury not praise Donald Trump, except for he's shown why you should come out and vote. You even once commented on the fact that I wouldn't vote for Trump. Clinton might not have grabbed, but penetrated, faced 3 counts and was nailed on 1 article of impeachment, It's all wrong but power and sex go hand in hand and knows no political boundries.

Originally Posted by DOR

My personal conclusion is that GOPers are not nearly as committed to democracy as Democrats. If the vote doesn't go their way, they look for a workaround. Democrats, on the other hand, try things like putting two candidates from the same party on the ballot so as to give people an actual choice.

DOR. I have trained foreign nationals since 1983. Before that played(5.18 min)/sat on the bench as a member of two Division 1 school team, in those locker rooms there was greater diversity, other than the sausage thing, than any other place I have been. What I have learned from this is every ideology, belief, practice, race, gender has no pipeline to the truth but everyone has a pipeline to fucking up. When I was furloughed between 2001 to 2008. Got a second job managaing 21 people. My job was to tap down the human trait of I'm better than anyone else. Stress by being hired you all qualified to work here, and you are only as good as the people around you. Work alone suffer, work together excell. I wish all our elected representantives would remember were Americans not Republicans, Democrats, more people didn't vote for them than voted for them. Thanks